AC25 Doc. 15.2.2

CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ______

Twenty-fifth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 18-22 July 2011

Periodic review of animal species included in the CITES Appendices

Periodic review of Felidae

REVIEW OF LYNX SPECIES UNDER THE PERIODIC REVIEW OF SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE CITES APPENDICES [RESOLUTION CONF. 11.1 (REV. COP15), RESOLUTION CONF. 14.8, AND DECISION 13.93 (REV. COP15)]

This document has been submitted by the United States of America*.

INTRODUCTION

At the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Bangkok, October 2004), the United States of America had submitted a proposal (CoP13 Prop. 5) to remove Lynx rufus (bobcat) from Appendix II. At CoP13, the United States consulted with other Parties on the proposal. Some Parties, especially the Member States of the European Community, expressed concerns about potential problems with control of trade in other Lynx spp. due to their similarity of appearance to Lynx rufus. Mexico also expressed the need to further evaluate the status of Lynx rufus within its borders. However, many Parties expressed support for a review of the listing of the Felidae because they believed that the listing of some species in the family does not accurately reflect their current biological and trade status. They also agreed that the listings of species due to look-alike concerns should be reviewed to determine if current identification techniques, trade controls, and other factors still require them to be listed because the species have been listed without a substantial review since CoP2 in 1977. As such, the United States agreed to withdraw the proposal, but with the concurrence of the Parties on Decision 13.93, which directed the Animals Committee to immediately include the Felidae in the Review of the Appendices.

At the 21st meeting of the Animals Committee (Geneva, May 2005), the United States agreed to lead the review of Lynx spp. under the review of the CITES Appendices by the Animals Committee based on the process developed by the working group on the Periodic Review of the Appendices and agreed by the Committee [see document AC21 WG3 Doc. 1 Rev. 1)]. The United States has since completed the review of Lynx spp. in accordance with this process and has provided updates of this review at the 22nd through 24th meetings of the Animals Committee. As a result of this review, the United States concluded that the inclusion of L. rufus in Appendix II for look-alike purposes is no longer warranted and, therefore, submitted proposals at CoP14 and CoP15 to remove L. rufus from the Appendices. The rejection of these proposals, however, is a clear indication that the Parties continue to have concerns that L. rufus merits listing as per Article II, paragraph 2(b), in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15), Criterion A in Annex 2b. Therefore, the proposal below represents the draft recommendation by the 25th meeting of the Animals Committee. In addition, we believe the same look-alike concerns would apply to the other two Appendix-II lynx species, L. canadensis and L. lynx, and therefore, we recommend these species remain in Appendix II. Finally, based on the results of the Lynx spp. range state survey (see the Annex to this document), we recommend that L. pardinus maintain its

* The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat or the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 1 inclusion in Appendix I, because this species continues to meet the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I as per Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15), Annex 1.

DRAFT PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE APPENDICES (in accordance with Annex 6 to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15, amended)

A. Draft Proposal

It is proposed that Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777) be kept in Appendix II pursuant to Criterion A of Annex 2 b – Criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendix II in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2 (b), of the Convention – of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15), according to which:

Species may be included in Appendix II in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2 (b), if either one of the following criteria is met:

A. The specimens of the species in the form in which they are traded resemble specimens of a species included in Appendix II under the provisions of Article II, paragraph 2 (a), or in Appendix I, such that enforcement officers who encounter specimens of CITES-listed species, are unlikely to be able to distinguish between them; or...

Justification: The CITES Parties are concerned that enforcement officers who encounter specimens of Lynx species are unlikely to be able to distinguish between the species.

B. Proponent

The proposal has been written by the United States of America and submitted to the Animals Committee for its consideration.

C. Supporting statement

1. Taxonomy

1.1 Class: Mammalia

1.2 Order: Carnivora

1.3 Family: Felidae

1.4 Species: Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777)

Potential subspecies: L. r. baileyi, L. r. californicus, L. r. escuinapae, L. r. fasciatus, L. r. floridanus, L. r. gigas, L. r. oaxacensis, L. r. pallescens, L. r. peninsularis, L. r. rufus, L. r. superiorensis, L.r. texensis, Hall 1981.

1.5 Scientific synonyms: Felis rufus, Jones et al. 1975, Tumlison 1987, Nowak 1999

1.6 Common names: English: bobcat, barred bobcat, bay lynx, bob-tailed cat, cat o’ the mountain, cat lynx, catamount, lynx cat, pallid bobcat, red lynx, wildcat French: chat sauvage, chat sauvage de la nouvelle cosae, loupcervier, lynx roux, pichou, pichu Spanish: gato de monte (Jackson 1961, Banfield 1987, McCord and Cardoza 1982)

1.7 Code numbers: A-112.007.001.024

2. Overview

L. rufus was included in Appendix II of CITES in 1977 along with all species of Felidae that had not already been listed. The listings at this time occurred prior to the adoption of a format for proposals, and there was no clarification of whether L. rufus was listed in its own right or for look-alike purposes. At CoP4 (Botswana 1983), it was agreed by the Conference of the Parties that this species’ continued listing was solely based

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 2 on Article II, paragraph 2(b) to ensure effective control of trade in other felids. Monitoring of wild L. rufus populations since 1977 continues to demonstrate that the species is not threatened; harvest and trade are well regulated. According to Nowell and Jackson (1996), L. rufus management programs in the United States and Canada are the most advanced management programs for commercial exploitation of feline furbearers. These programs ensure long-term sustainable use of the species and support its conservation.

This proposal is based on an analysis of information resulting from the review of Lynx spp. under the review of the CITES Appendices by the Animals Committee, which was led by the United States based on the process agreed by the Animals Committee [document AC21 WG3 Doc. 1 Rev. 1)]. This information includes:

1. A survey of all range countries for Lynx spp., conducted by the United States during 2005-2006 (see the Annex to this document);

2. A study by TRAFFIC North America (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007), contracted by the United States, analyzing trade in Lynx spp., including a compilation of information on illegal trade in these species and an assessment of the potential for trade irregularities that are likely to occur due to the similarity of appearance among these species;

3. An analysis by the United States of CITES trade data for Lynx spp. for the years 2002 through 2006 [from the United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP- WCMC) CITES Trade Database];

4. The outcome of a meeting held in Brussels in October 2008, which was jointly organized and convened by the United States and European Commission for the purpose of discussing the degree of illegal trade in Lynx spp. related to L. rufus look-alike concerns. Participants included management and law enforcement authorities of range countries of Lynx spp.; and

5. The results of a survey conducted by the Scientific Authority of the United States through researchers at Cornell University (2008) and in consultation with Canada and Mexico, for the purpose of estimating the L. rufus population size, distribution, and status throughout its range.

The survey by TRAFFIC North America (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007) of North American and European fur industry representatives who deal with Lynx spp. suggests that international, European, Asian, and North American markets all seem to prefer both L. rufus and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) over other Lynx spp. The survey of range countries, conducted by the United States for the Review of the Appendices by the Animals Committee, as well as the trade data show that trade in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) is well controlled, especially by range countries. WCMC data show that the level of trade in L. lynx and L. pardinus is minor relative to the level of trade in L. rufus and L. canadensis, and based on the Lynx spp. range country survey conducted for the Review of the Appendices by the Animals Committee, take from the wild of all Lynx spp. is highly regulated. Range country responses to this survey indicate that range countries have implemented adequate domestic legislation as well as regulations, management, and enforcement controls to manage harvest and trade in other Lynx spp. In the opinion of industry representatives, distinguishing L. rufus parts, pieces and derivatives from those of Lynx canadensis is not difficult and can be accomplished with limited experience and/or training (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007). To facilitate species identification, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) produced a web-based Lynx identification manual designed for use by CITES authorities and other enforcement officials. The manual has been designed as an aide in distinguishing full skins and skins lacking a head and tail of L. rufus and other Lynx spp.

Trade in L. rufus includes bodies, carvings, claws, feet, garments, leather products, live animals, plates, skins, skin pieces, skulls, skeletons, specimens, tails, teeth, and trophies; however, full pelts1 represent the overwhelming majority of exports and accounted for 92% of the L. rufus items in legal trade between 2002 and 2006. Considering only the skin-related items (i.e., garments, leather products, plates, skins, and skin pieces), skins accounted for 95% of the legal trade in these L. rufus items. Finally, WCMC data show that the low volume of illegally traded Lynx spp. specimens does not suggest a major problem with illegal trade in Lynx spp. A survey of Lynx spp. range countries did not reveal any incidence of L. lynx or L. pardinus being illegally trafficked as L. rufus (AC24 Doc.10.3).

1 We use the term “full pelt” to refer to items coded as “skins” in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, because in the database other items representing parts and pieces of pelts are coded separately.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 3 Despite the information summarized above, the CITES Parties rejected U.S. proposals at CoP 14 and CoP15 to remove L. rufus from the Appendices due to continuing concerns that specimens of L. rufus in trade may be confused with specimens of other Lynx species.

3. Species Characteristics

3.1 Distribution

L. rufus is the most widely distributed native felid in North America, ranging from as far north as central British Columbia (55°N) and south to Oaxaca, Mexico (17°N). Currently, with the exception of Delaware, L. rufus can be found in all the contiguous United States; however, its distribution is restricted in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio (Woolf and Hubert 1998). Historically L. rufus was found in all 48 states in the United States (Young 1958). L. rufus range in North America is approximately 8,708,888 km² including 6,186,819 km² (71% of range) in the United States, 1,702,545 km² (20% of range) in Mexico, and 819,524 km² (9% of range) in Canada (Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

3.2 Habitat

L. rufus are found in a wide variety of habitats, from bottomland forests in Alabama, United States, to arid deserts in Mexico, and from northern boreal forests in Canada to the humid tropical regions of Florida, United States. They generally prefer rough, rocky country interspersed with dense cover (Pollack 1951, Erickson 1955, Young 1958, Zezulak and Schwab 1979, Karpowitz 1981, Golden 1982). McCord (1974) snow-tracked L. rufus in Massachusetts and found that roads, cliffs, spruce plantations, and hemlock-hardwoods were used most in relation to their abundance. L. rufus in Missouri preferred bluffs, brushy fields, and second-growth oak habitats (Hamilton 1982). In Wisconsin, lowland coniferous forests were consistently selected by both sexes during all seasons, although there were sex-related and seasonal differences in selection of other habitats (Lovallo and Anderson 1996). In Mexico, L. rufus is found in dry scrub, coniferous forests, mixed forests of pine and oak, and tropical deciduous forests (27 April 2004 letter to K. Stansell, Assistant Director, International Affairs, USFWS from H. Benítez Díaz, Director of Outreach and International Affairs, National Commission for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity, Mexico).

Although prey abundance is considered the most important factor in the selection of habitat types, protection from severe weather, availability of resting and den sites, dense cover for hunting and escape, and freedom from disturbance are also important factors in determining L. rufus habitat use (Pollack 1951, Erickson 1955, Bailey 1974).

3.3 Biological characteristics

L. rufus is polygamous, seasonally polyestrous, and may experience up to three estrous cycles from March through June if not impregnated during ovulation (Pollack 1950, Crowe 1975a, Stys and Leopold 1993, Crowe 1975b). The majority of L. rufus breeding occurs during February and March but varies with latitude, longitude, altitude, climate, photoperiod, and prey availability (McCord and Cardoza 1982). The gestation period in L. rufus ranges from 63 to 70 days (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). Estimates of average litter sizes range from 1.7 to 3.6 kittens per litter, with a mean of 2.7 (Anderson 1987). Sex ratios of L. rufus kittens are normally 1:1. L. rufus generally produces a single litter per year, but females are capable of producing a second litter if the initial litter is lost after parturition (Winegarner and Winegarner 1982, Beeler 1985, Stys and Leopold 1993). Survival rates of kittens are generally lower than that of adults and may be highly variable; estimates of annual survival range from 18 to 71% (Crowe 1975b). Kitten survival rates are directly related to prey abundance (Knick 1990). Adult survival rates range from 56 to 67%. Most causes of mortality are human related; legal harvest and vehicle-caused mortalities are most common. Research on L. rufus indicates little impact on population size until harvest exceeded 20% of the population (Knick 1990).

3.4 Morphological characteristics

The pelage of L. rufus varies from shades of buff and brown, spotted, and lined with dark brown and black. The crown is streaked with black, and the backs of the ears are heavily marked with black (Guggisberg 1975, Nowak 1999). The under-parts of the body are white with black spots (McCord and Cardoza 1982). The short tail has a black tip, but only on the upper side. Adult L. rufus weights vary considerably throughout their range. As in other Lynx spp., L. rufus has a ruff of fur extending from the

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 4 ears to the jowls. The ears may or may not be tufted (Nowak 1999). Adult males average 9.6 (6.4- 18.3) kg, and adult females weigh 6.8 (4.1-15.3) kg (Banfield 1987). Total length (in mm) of males and females, respectively, is 869 (475-1,252) and 786 (610-1,092) (McCord and Cardoza 1982). L. rufus skulls can be identified by the presence of both a narrow presphenoid bone (<6 mm) and a confluence of the hypoglossal foramen with the posterior lacerate foramen. As in a number of other short faced cat species, L. rufus is missing the second upper premolars, giving them 28 teeth instead of 30 typical of other members of Felidae (Ewer 1973). L. rufus has four functional toes on the front and hind feet (McCord and Cardoza 1982).

3.5 Role of the species in its ecosystem

L. rufus is one of several carnivores within the complex predator communities of North America. Because L. rufus occupies a wide variety of habitats, its role as a forest and farmland predator is varied. L. rufus is ecologically similar to L. canadensis particularly in terms of prey selection, and their ranges are rarely sympatric. Where L. rufus and L. canadensis ranges overlap, L. rufus typically out- compete L. canadensis unless excessive snow depth provides L. canadensis with a foraging advantage (Parker et al. 1983).

4. Status and trends

4.1 Habitat trends

During the last century, the range of L. rufus has expanded into northern Minnesota (United States), southern Ontario (Canada), and Manitoba (Canada) as lumbering, fire, and farming has opened the dense, unbroken coniferous forests of these areas (Rollings 1945). Although increases in urban development may limit L. rufus density in some areas, recent studies have documented increases in its density in suburban and developed areas of the eastern and mid-western United States (Woolf and Neilson 2001).

4.2 Population size

The current estimated L. rufus population in the United States is 1,419,333 to 2,638,738 (Roberts and Crimmins 2010). In 1981, using similar methodology it was estimated there were 725,000 to 1,017,000 (USFWS 1982). The U.S. L. rufus population has clearly grown considerably since that time. This population growth is likely a response to many factors including changing agricultural practices, range expansion, and habitat improvement programs (Woolf and Hubert 1998, Lovallo 2001). Numerous states within the United States independently estimate L. rufus populations by using a variety of methods, such as computer population models and life table analyses (Anderson and Lovallo 2003, Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

The status of L. rufus in Canada is considered secure (i.e., relatively widespread or abundant) (CWS 2009). In the recent survey of the status of L. rufus in North America (Roberts and Crimmins 2010) none of the Canadian provinces reported that L. rufus were currently in decline.

Anecdotal reports suggest that L. rufus is relatively abundant in many areas of Mexico and can be found in developed areas (27 April 2004 letter from H. Benítez Díaz). A population assessment has recently been conducted to more precisely determine the status of Mexican populations of L. rufus. Estimates of population density in various localities monitored in Mexico during the project ranging from 0.05 to 0.53 /km2 and are within the range of results reported in the United States, 0.09 - 1.53 /km2 (AC24, Inf Doc 10).

The current status of the L. rufus population and distribution in North America appears to be healthy and significantly greater than the early 1980’s (Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

4.3 Population structure

L. rufus population sex ratios are directly related to levels of harvest. Harvest records indicate that in exploited populations males are taken more frequently in the younger age cohorts, whereas females constitute a larger percentage of the older cohorts (Crowe and Strickland 1975, Fritts and Sealander 1978, Brand and Keith 1979, Parker and Smith 1983). The proportion of young animals (< 2 years old) in a population is closely related to the intensity of harvest. Unexploited populations are largely composed of older individuals, whereas younger animals dominate exploited populations. This may

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 5 result from increased reproduction and higher adult mortality. L. rufus is essentially solitary with direct social interactions being brief and infrequent. Exceptions include females with kittens and adult males and females during the breeding season (Bailey 1974, Rolley 1983).

Home ranges of L. rufus in the northern latitudes are considerably larger than those from the south, probably due to lower prey populations, increased thermal demands, and larger body size in the north. Average male home ranges are generally two to three times larger than those of females, although some studies have reported size differences as large as four to five times (Hall and Newsom 1976, Major 1983, Witmer and DeCalesta 1986).

4.4 Population trends

As of 1996, populations in the United States were considered stable in 22 States and increasing in 20 States, with no States reporting overall declines (Woolf and Hubert 1998). As of 2001, several mid- western and eastern States continued to report population increases (Woolf and Neilson 2001). In follow-up studies in 2008, five States reported the population trend as unknown, and one State, Florida, reported its L. rufus population to be declining, a decline attributed to loss of habitat (Figure 1.) (Roberts and Crimmins 2010). Geographic expansion of L. rufus range and notable increases in L. rufus density suggest that population size has likely increased in the past decade (Woolf and Hubert 1998, Lovallo 2001, Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

Figure1. Population trends in L. rufus populations in the United States

Population trends in Canadian range provinces are reported as stable or increasing (Roberts and Crimmins 2010). Cyclic fluctuations related to prey abundance have been observed (Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) 2009).

Current studies in Mexico reveal that L. rufus are widespread with moderate densities (AC24 Inf Doc 10), but historical data are not sufficient to assess how Mexico’s populations have changed over time.

4.5 Geographic trends

Periodic national surveys of L. rufus abundance and distribution suggest continued geographic expansion of its populations throughout their range in the United States, particularly in mid-western and several mid-Atlantic States (Hon 1990, Woolf and Neilson 2001, Roberts and Crimmins 2010). Most notably, L. rufus populations have expanded their ranges in Illinois (Bluett et al. 2001, Woolf and Hubert 1998), Missouri (Erickson et al. 1981), Nebraska (Landholt and Genoways 2000), and Pennsylvania (Lovallo 2001), as well as Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio (Woolf and Hubert 1998).

5. Threats

Although some localized populations of L. rufus in the United States have likely declined due to urbanization, only the state of Florida reports a state-wide decline. There are no widespread threats to U.S. L. rufus populations, which is in part due to the species’ ability to exploit a wide variety of habitats.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 6 There are no widespread acute threats to Canadian L. rufus populations. Some possible threats include decline in prey populations, loss of habitat, habitat alteration, and climate change (CWS 2009).

Some regions in Mexico have undergone drastic changes in vegetation that have affected the conservation status of several species. However, L. rufus is still present in regions with strong influence by human activities such as localized areas near Mexico City. Mexico reported that data obtained in their recent L. rufus population studies do not support a conclusion that the species faces extinction risk and are therefore not considered necessary for inclusion in the list of Species at Risk in Mexico (AC 24 Inf Doc 10).

L. rufus is considered Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Kelly et. al 2008).

6. Utilization and trade

6.1 National utilization

L. rufus is legally harvested in 39 states of the United States, where harvest levels have varied due to changes in pelt value and fur harvest intensity for other species. In Canada, L. rufus is legally harvested in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, with the majority of harvest occurring in Nova Scotia (65%-70%), followed by New Brunswick (20%) and British Columbia (10%) (CWS 2009). While the purpose of the harvest in Canada is almost exclusively for the collection of pelts for the fur trade, there is a small amount of trade in other L. rufus parts (taxidermy mounts, meat, teeth, tails, etc.) (CWS 2009). In Mexico, L. rufus is primarily harvested as game, and exports are restricted to trophies (June 16, 2006, email response from Mexico to the Animals’ Committee survey). L. rufus skins from Mexico and other subtropical climates are generally considered by the industry to be of low value and are not commercially in demand. Between 2005-2009 a total of 26 L. rufus were exported from Mexico, primarily as hunting trophies to the United States (AC24 Inf Doc 10).

6.2 Legal trade

From 2002 through 2006, approximately 380,158 Lynx spp. items2 (bodies, live animals, parts, pieces, or derivatives) were legally traded according to export data provided in the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database. Of these items, 282,613 (74%) were L. rufus; 94,770 (25%) were L. canadensis; 1,893 (0.5%) were L. lynx; and 538 (<0.5%) were L. pardinus; and 344 (<0.5%) were recorded as Lynx spp. Of the 380,158 legally traded items, 337,547 (89%) were skins. Of these skins, 259,553 (77%) were L. rufus; 77,388 (23%) were L. canadensis; 448 (<0.5%) were L. lynx; 157 (<0.5%) were recorded as Lynx spp.; and 1 (<0.5%) was L. pardinus. According to the same data from 2002 through 2006, 41 exporting or re-exporting countries legally exported L. rufus items. The range countries United States and Canada exported or re-exported the highest numbers of legal L. rufus items, accounting for 91% of the legal L. rufus items recorded. The United States exported or re-exported 172,954 (61%) of the items, and Canada exported or re-exported 84,745 (30%) of the items. The remaining 24,914 (9%) items were exported or re-exported by other countries, including the range country Mexico. However, from 2002 through 2006, Mexico only exported or re-exported 12 (<0.05%) L. rufus items.

6.3 Parts and derivatives in trade

Trade in L. rufus items include bodies, carvings, claws, feet, garments, leather products, plates, skins, skin pieces, skulls, skeletons, specimens, tails, teeth, and trophies; however, skins are the most common and accounted for 92% of the L. rufus items in legal trade from 2002 through 2006. Considering only the skin-related items (i.e., garments, leather products, plates, skins, and skin pieces), skins accounted for 95% of these items. According to TRAFFIC North America, from 2000 through 2004, skins comprised 96% of the L. rufus items legally exported from the United States during that time (E. Cooper, email pers. comm. 25 March 2008). Most L. rufus pelts exported from North America are handled through a small number of major fur distributors in Canada and the United States. The vast majority of furs are exported as pelts used for the production of fur garments. Spotted belly fur from L. rufus is generally used as a trim item on garments. From 2002 through 2006, the primary importers of L. rufus items were Canada, Italy, Greece, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland, accounting for 84% of L. rufus items that were reported exported during that

2 Data for skin pieces reported in kilogram (kg) units were converted to number (no.) units based on the average weight of pelts for that species, as per the methods described in Cooper and Shadbolt 2007.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 7 time. Of the 280,749 L. rufus items exported during that time period, Canada imported 86,256 (31%) items, Italy imported 59,757 (21%) items, Greece imported 39,094 (14%) items, the United States imported 29,115 items (10%), the United Kingdom imported 11,675 (4%) items, and Poland imported 10,689 (4%) items.

6.4 Illegal trade

Due to the relatively small data-set of illegal trade figures provided by the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database between 2002 and 2006, we present summary data from TRAFFIC North America’s analysis of illegal trade spanning the years 1980 through 2004 (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007). Following a summary of this analysis, we provide a summary of data reported for the years 2005 and 2006, as provided by the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database.

Between 1980 and 2004, a total of 3,568 Lynx spp. items (parts, pieces or derivatives) were seized as illegal, based on the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007). This is an average of only 143 items per year, and represents only 0.2% of the total (legal and illegal) trade during this time period. Of the 3,568 Lynx spp. seized, 3,119 (87%) were parts, pieces, or derivatives of L. rufus; 223 (6%) were L. canadensis; 210 (6%) were L. lynx; 15 (<1%) were recorded as Lynx spp.; and 1 (<0.1%) was L. pardinus.

Of the 3,568 Lynx spp. items seized as illegal, 3,039 (85%) were skins, 205 (6%) were teeth, 93 (3%) were garments, 72 (2%) were fur plates, and the other 159 (4%) seized items were tails, bodies, skin pieces, trophies, skulls, skin/leather items, claws, feet, and unknown items. Of the 3,039 Lynx spp. seized skins, 2,818 (93%) were L. rufus, 135 (4%) were L. lynx, 80 (3%) L. canadensis; and 6 (<1%) were recorded as Lynx spp.

Illegal Lynx spp. items were recorded for 20 importing countries. Of the 3,568 Lynx spp. items seized, 37% were imported into the United States, 20% into Poland, 19% into Switzerland, 10% into Denmark, 6% into Germany, 3% into Canada, and the remaining 5% of the items were imported into Russia, Italy, Finland, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Mexico, Australia, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Chinese Taipei, Japan, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates, and an unknown country. Illegal Lynx spp. items were recorded for 25 exporting/re-exporting countries. Of the 3,568 Lynx spp. items seized, 39% were exported/re-exported from the United States, 20% from Germany, 14% from the United Kingdom, 7% from Mexico, 6% from Japan, 4% from Canada, and the remaining 11% were exported from unknown countries, the former USSR, Greece, India, Russia, Italy, France, Hong Kong, Brazil, China, Armenia, Pakistan, South Africa, Afghanistan, Denmark, Israel, Kuwait, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, and Poland. Again, the majority (87%) of these items were L. rufus.

In the years 2005 and 2006, based on export data from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, 193 Lynx spp. items (bodies, live animals, parts, pieces, or derivatives) were reported to be seized as illegal3. Of these items, 179 (93%) were skins. All of the 179 skins were of L. rufus exported from the United States. Four of these skins were exported to Canada, and 175 skins were exported to Hong Kong.

6.5 Impacts to look-alikes

In response to a recommendation made in the Felidae working group and adopted by the 23rd Animals Committee, a meeting was organized for the management, customs, and law enforcement authorities of the Lynx spp. range countries to discuss possible problems of illegal trade of those species. Case studies of illegal trade in L. lynx and L. pardinus were also discussed. The primary impetus for this meeting as directed by the 23rd Animals Committee was to address the look-alike issue with Lynx and to discern if the concerns about L. lynx and L. pardinus potentially entering in trade as L. rufus are actual or hypothetical.

Discussions revealed that in most cases the illegal poaching of L. lynx and L. pardinus is related to predator control to protect livestock and game animals. No documented incidents were reported of L. lynx or L. pardinus being entered into trade as L. rufus (AC24 Doc. 10.3).

3 Consistent with the methodology provided in TRAFFIC North America 2006, we excluded source code “I” (illegal) data that had corresponding purpose codes “E” (educational) and “S” (scientific).

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 8 Several European Union (EU) countries indicated concerns that a simple delisting could allow L. lynx to enter trade more easily if there is no document trail for L. rufus entering international trade. One possible option that received significant discussion involved down-listing L. rufus to CITES Appendix III and having the EU maintain it on their Annex B. This combined approach would allow for the retention of CITES documentation for shipments of L. rufus leaving the United States and other exporting countries and entering EU Member States. The paperwork received on the EU side would not change.

6.6 Actual or potential trade impacts

The small volume of illegally traded Lynx spp. items does not suggest a major problem with illegal trade in Lynx spp. (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007).

Canada is confident that current regulatory and management practices guard against potential threats from trade demand and that L. rufus and L. canadensis in Canada are not adversely impacted by trade.

Neither domestic nor international trade constitutes a threat to populations of L. rufus.

7. Legal instruments

7.1 National

L. rufus hunting and trade is regulated domestically throughout its range (Nowell and Jackson 1996). In the United States, L. rufus is currently classified as game or furbearer species and subsequently harvested through regulation in 39 States. The species is further protected by continuous closed hunting seasons in nine States (Woolf and Hubert 1998).

Harvest of L. rufus in Mexico is regulated by the General Law of Wildlife and the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection. Both establish that prior to harvesting L. rufus, it must be demonstrated that harvest rates are less than the natural renewal rate of the wild population affected (June 16, 2006, email response from Mexico to the Animals’ Committee survey). In Mexico, harvesting on Lynx rufus has been approved only for game hunting purposes through Units for Management and Conservation of Wildlife (UMA). The same legislation established measures for controlling problematic individuals, and specimens are generally captured and relocated for recovery, research or environmental education purposes; to date, no lethal control of specimens has been allowed (7 October 2009 letter from Alejandra Garcia Naranjo, CITES Coordinator, CONABIO, Mexico, to Rosemarie Gnam, Chief, USFWS Division of Scientific Authority).

In Canada, L. rufus is classified as a furbearer species and is managed regionally by the provinces and territories. The species is harvested in seven of eight range provinces under provincial regulation. Harvest is prohibited in Quebec (CWS 2009). Like all vertebrates in Canada, felid species are legally protected through various provincial and territorial wildlife acts. Under these acts, certain uses of wildlife are allowed under specific regulations and only with the provision of licenses or permits. Generally, without such a license, the catch, possession, trade, disturbance, or destruction of wildlife is prohibited. Jurisdictions require mandatory trapper education and mandatory reporting of all take (intended or incidental) as a condition of licensing (CWS 2009).

7.2 International

L. rufus is listed in CITES Appendix II for look-alike reasons.

8. Species management

8.1 Management measures

In the United States, the 39 States that allow harvest of L. rufus have implemented measures to control harvest intensity through regulations that dictate season length, methods of take, bag limits, and/or mandatory reporting. Additionally, many States use individual permits (9 States) or statewide harvest quotas (4 States) to limit the annual harvest (Woolf and Hubert 1998). States periodically review species harvest programs to account for new findings and current advice from experts in their region. Trade in skins or other specimens from captive-bred animals is not common, but where legal,

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 9 is monitored by State authorities. Sustainable harvest rates are most often determined by using population models or life table analyses based on population demographic data collected annually from harvested samples. Managers generally consider 20% to be the maximum sustainable annual harvest rate for L. rufus, and age structure analyses, such as adult-to-yearling ratios, have been developed to estimate changes in harvest rates over time (Knick 1990).

In Canada, harvest control measures are similar. The species may be harvested only during a small part of the year in all jurisdictions. The harvest season ranges from as early as 1 November to the end of February, or up to four months of the year. Quotas are in place in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and are set based on harvest statistics and prey abundance surveys (CWS 2009).

In general, the harvest rate in Mexico is about 1 specimen per 4,000 hectares. The specific harvest rate is determined according population surveys using olfactory attractors (June 16, 2006, email response from Mexico to the Animals’ Committee survey).

8.2 Population monitoring

Although population size is difficult to estimate for L. rufus due to their cryptic and primarily nocturnal behavior, numerous indices have been employed by U.S. State and Canadian provincial furbearer managers to determine range, occupancy of habitats, and geographic and numeric trends in L. rufus populations. Examples of such data include, but are not limited to, scent-station surveys, winter track counts, geographically referenced harvest data, collection of vehicle-caused mortalities, hunter and trapper questionnaires, biologists’ opinions, hunter sighting surveys, and incidental captures by trappers (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). Other population parameters are estimated through the collection of age and reproductive data from hunter and trapper harvested animals.

In addition, in Canada evaluations of prey abundance are conducted (CWS 2009). In all Canadian jurisdictions, there is a system of zoning (through management regions), with each monitored and regulated according to local conditions). Nova Scotia and New Brunswick require carcass submission for collection of biological data to monitor such indices as condition, productivity, and age structure in the populations (Jan. 30, 2006, letter from the Canadian Wildlife Service to the USFWS).

In Mexico, populations are monitored using scent station surveys. Recently a population assessment has been conducted to determine the status of Mexican L. rufus populations using tracking with automatic cameras, combined with statistical methods for capture-recapture analysis. This technique considers a combination of distinct characters in the fur to differentiate between individuals captured in the photographs (R. Medellin, AC24 Inf Doc 10).

The majority of jurisdictions in North America that reported monitoring methods utilized multiple methods, including harvest data analysis, hunter surveys, scent/sign stations, public sightings, population models, snow track surveys, incidental harvest, and vehicle collision analysis. Of 45 jurisdictions reporting, 25 utilized more than one method. About 73% of the jurisdictions that reported use harvest data analysis for monitoring (Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

8.3 Control measures

8.3.1 International

L. rufus was included in Appendix II of CITES in 1977 along with all species of Felidae that had not already been listed. In response to a proposal submitted at CoP4 by the United States and Canada to remove L. rufus from CITES, the parties agreed to include the species under Appendix II due to its similarity of appearance to other felids listed under the Appendices (as per Article II, paragraph 2(b) of CITES).

8.3.2 Domestic

According to Nowell and Jackson (1996), L. rufus management programs in the United States and Canada are the most advanced management programs for commercial exploitation of feline furbearers. The management programs ensure long-term sustainable use of the species and support its conservation. Agencies with jurisdictional authority employ qualified and specialized wildlife biologists to provide management and harvest recommendations for L. rufus in their respective regions. In the United States, scientists,

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 10 agency personnel, and the public review management recommendations prior to being adopted. State and Federal agency wildlife law enforcement personnel are trained to identify L. rufus and are well-versed in State and Federal laws regarding the harvest, transport, and sale of L. rufus and its parts.

Canada has employed a system of mandatory provincial/territorial export permitting in all jurisdictions which facilitates tracking of movement of wildlife (or parts, such as pelts) between jurisdictions within Canada, thereby assuring and corroborating reliability of numbers from harvest reporting within the jurisdictions. As the exports are primarily whole pelts, identification of species is relatively simple and accurate. Any look-alike concerns in the trade of L. rufus are thus not likely to arise in Canada at the whole pelt level. Canadian protections for L. rufus under provincial/territorial wildlife acts would remain in place if L. rufus were de-listed from CITES, as they are not dependent on listing in the CITES Appendices. Thus continued listing in the Appendices is not needed to safeguard Canadian populations of this species (CWS 2009).

In Mexico, L. rufus exports are restricted to trophies (June 16, 2006, email response from Mexico to the Animals’ Committee survey). Between 2005-2009 an average of 5 L. rufus per year were exported from Mexico, primarily as hunting trophies to the United States (AC24 Inf. Doc. 10).

8.4 Captive breeding and artificial propagation

In the United States, some States allow and regulate captive rearing and propagation of L. rufus for commercial purposes. However, current international trade of pelts is dominated by wild fur harvests from North American countries.

8.5 Habitat conservation

Because L. rufus thrives in a wide variety of habitats throughout their range, State, Federal, and private lands containing these habitats are able to sustain the current distribution.

There are no specific natural protected areas designed for L. rufus in Mexico, however, several protected areas, that are located along this species’ distribution range, protect L. rufus and its habitat. These protected areas cover up to 5,427,928 hectares (ha) as follows:

– 4,292,237ha of Biosphere Reserves (El Vizcaíno, Sierra La Laguna, Mapimí, Sierra de Manantlán, Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar), – 426,064ha of National Parks (San Pedro Mártir, Cumbres del Ajusco , Desierto de los Leones, Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl, Nevado de Toluca, Lagunas de Zempoala, Cumbres de Monterrey, Cofre de Perote, Pico de Orizaba), and – 709,627ha of Protection Areas of Fauna and Flora (Cañón de Santa Elena, Maderas del Carmen, Corredor Biológico Chichinautzin, Sierra de Ajos Bavispe).

8.6 Safeguards

A survey of North American and European fur industry representatives that deal with Lynx spp. suggests that international, European, and Asian markets all seem to prefer both L. rufus and L. canadensis. Further, in the opinion of industry representatives, distinguishing L. rufus parts, pieces, and derivatives from those of Lynx canadensis is not difficult and can be accomplished with limited experience and/or training. To facilitate species identification, the USFWS has produced a web-based Lynx identification manual designed for use by CITES authorities and other enforcement officials. The manual has been designed as an aide in distinguishing full skins and skins lacking a head and tail of L. rufus and Lynx spp..

Fur industry representatives report that if L. rufus were delisted, market demand might increase or remain the same, but likely would not decrease (Cooper and Shadbolt 2007). Also, as stated previously, the harvest of L. rufus is carefully managed on a sustainable basis in the United States and Canada.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 11 The ready availability of legally acquired L. rufus in the market is a safeguard to the illegal take and trade of other Lynx spp. Also, range countries have implemented adequate domestic legislation and regulations, management, and enforcement controls to manage harvest and trade in other Lynx spp.

9. Information on similar species

Several species have been identified as similar in appearance to L. rufus, including the L. canadensis, L. pardinus, and L. lynx. Characteristics of the pelage and skull can be used to clearly distinguish L. rufus from other members of the genus Lynx. For example, L. canadensis can be distinguished visually from L. rufus by their large furry pads, slightly shorter tail, longer black ear tufts, and black margins along the ear (>2.5 cm), as well as a less defined spotting on the coat. While the tail of L. rufus is banded on the upper surface only, the tail of the other Lynx spp. ends in a black tip that completely encircles the tail (Guggisberg 1975, Nowak 1999, Lariviere and Walton 1997). The upper body of L. rufus is generally yellowish or reddish brown, whereas the pelage of the L. canadensis is generally grayer, and the belly, legs, and feet are grayish to buff white and often speckled with brownish black spots, particularly on the inside of the legs (McCord and Cardoza 1982). Although the USFWS Division of Scientific Authority’s consultation with the USFWS National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory has revealed that some pieces of L. rufus skins cannot be distinguished from the other Lynx spp., according to data provided by the UNEP-WCMC Trade database, between 2002 and 2006, the majority of trade (89%) in Lynx spp. items consists of skins. Since skins are almost always auctioned as dry skins (not tanned yet) with fur out and are almost always complete, including the ears and tail (M. Lovallo, pers. comm. email to M. Cogliano 29 December 2006), the skins should not present a look-alike problem because L. rufus can be reliably distinguished from other Lynx spp. by the ears and tail, as described above. It is highly unlikely that pieces of L. lynx or L. pardinus could enter illegal trade in quantities significant enough to impact populations.

L. rufus skulls can be identified by the presence of both a narrow presphenoid bone (<6 mm) and a confluence of the hypoglossal foramen with the posterior lacerate foramen. L. canadensis skulls have an inflated presphenoid bone and the hypoglossal and posterior lacerate forama are separated (Jackson 1961). Additionally, Ommundsen (1991) identified three other morphometrics that can be used to distinguish skulls: the number of minor palatine foramina (≥2 in L. rufus, <2 in L. canadensis), the height of the post-orbital process of the jugal (larger than the space in the rim in L. rufus and smaller than the space in the rim for L. canadensis), and most significantly the angle of the infra-orbital foramen (the long axis is nearly horizontal in L. rufus and intersects the nasal bone, whereas it is closer to vertical in the L. canadensis). Likewise, in L. lynx, the infra-orbital foramin is disposed almost vertically (Novikov 1962). Trade data indicates that trade in Lynx spp. skulls is not significant.

To facilitate species identification, the USFWS has produced a web-based Lynx identification manual designed for use by CITES authorities and other enforcement officials. The manual has been designed as an aide in distinguishing full skins and skins lacking a head and tail of L. rufus and other Lynx spp..

10. Consultations

The United States has consulted with the L. rufus range countries of Canada and Mexico, and information from these range countries has been incorporated throughout this proposal. The United States has also consulted with the L. canadensis, L. lynx, and L. pardinus range countries. The information from these range countries has been incorporated into this proposal, as appropriate, and the results are summarized in the Annex to this document.

11. Additional remarks

None.

12. References

Anderson, E. M. 1987. Critical review and annotated bibliography of the literature on the bobcat. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report No. 62.

Anderson E.M. and M. J. Lovallo. 2003. Bobcat and Lynx. Pages 758-786 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics. Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, Maryland.

Bailey, T. N. 1974. Social organization in a bobcat population. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:435-446.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 12 Banfield, A.W.F., 1987. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Beeler, I. E. 1985. Reproduction characteristics of captive and wild bobcats (Felis rufus) in Mississippi. M.S Thesis, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State. 81 pp.

Bluett, R. D., G. F. Hubert, and A. Woolf 2001. Perspectives on bobcat management in Illinois. Pages 67- 73 in A. Woolf, C. K. Nielsen, and R. D. Bluett editors. Proceedings of a Symposium on Current Bobcat Research and Implications for Management. The Wildlife Society 2000 Conference: Nashville, Tennessee.

Brand, C.J. and Keith, L.B. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:827-849.

Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. 2009. Lynx rufus (Bobcat) Non-detriment Finding for Canada. See http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/eng/sct0/neo24_e.cfm.

Cooper, E.W.T. and T. Shadbolt. 2007. An analysis of the CITES-Reported Illegal Trade in Lynx Species and Fur Industry Perceptions in North America and Europe. Technical Report Commissioned by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. TRAFFIC North America, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. 72pp.

Crowe, D.M. 1975a. Aspects of aging, growth and reproduction of bobcats from Wyoming. J. Mammal. 56:177-198.

Crowe, D. M. 1975b. A model for unexploited bobcat populations in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39:408-415.

, and D. Strickland. 1975. Population structures of some mammalian predators in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:449-450.

Erickson, A. W. 1955. An ecological study of the bobcat in Michigan. Thesis, Michigan State University: East Lansing, Michigan.

Erickson, D. W., D. A. Hamilton, and F. G. Sampson. 1981. The status of the bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Missouri. Transaction of Missouri Academy of Science 15:49-60.

Ewer, R.F. 1973. The Carnivores. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York.

Fritts, S. H., and J. A. Sealander. 1978. Diets of bobcats in Arkansas with special reference to age and sex differences. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:533-539.

Golden, H. 1982. Bobcat populations and environmental relationships in northwestern Nevada. Thesis, University of Nevada: Reno, Nevada.

Guggisberg, C.A.W. 1975. Wild Cats of the World. Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc.: New York.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Wiley and Sons: New York.

Hall, H.T. and Newsom, J.D. 1976. Summer home ranges and movements of bobcats in bottomland hardwoods of southern Louisiana. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 30: 427-436.

Hamilton, D. A. 1982. Ecology of the bobcat in Missouri. Thesis, University of Missouri: Columbia, Missouri.

Jackson, H. H. T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin.

Karpowitz, J. F. 1981. Home range and movements of Utah bobcats with reference to habitat selection and prey base. Thesis, Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah.

Kelly, M., Caso, A. & Lopez Gonzalez, C. 2008. Lynx rufus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on 09 May 2011.

Knick, S. T. 1990. Ecology of bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey decline in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 108:1-42.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 13 Landholt, L. M. and H. H. Genoways. 2000. Population trends in furbearers in Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 26:97-100.

Lariveire, S. and L. R. Walton 1997. Lynx rufus. Mammalian Species 563:1-8.

Lovallo, M. J. 2001. Status and management of bobcat in Pennsylvania. Pages 74-79 in A. Woolf, C. K. Nielsen, and R. D. Bluett editors. Proceedings of a Symposium on Current Bobcat Research and Implications for Management. The Wildlife Society 2000 Conference: Nashville, Tennessee.

Lovallo, M. J. and E. M. Anderson 1996. Bobcat (Lynx rufus) home range size and habitat use in northwest Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 135:241-252.

Major, J.T. 1983. Ecology and interspecific relationships of coyotes, bobcats, and red foxes in western Maine. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono.

McCord, C. M. 1974. Selection of winter habitat by bobcats (Lynx rufus) on the Quabbin Reservation, Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy 55:428-437.

McCord, C. M and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx (Felis rufus and F. lynx). Pages 728-766 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics. Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, Maryland.

Novikov, G.A. 1962. Carnivorous Mammals of the Fauna of the USSR. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Ltd.: Jerusalem.

Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World: Sixth Edition, Volume I. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London.

Nowell, K. and P. Jackson (compiler and eds.). 1996. Wild Cats: Status Survey and Action Plan. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 140-144.

Ommundsen, P. D. 1991. Morphological differences between lynx and bobcat skulls. Northwest Science 65:248-250.

Parker, G. R. and G. E. J. Smith. 1983. Sex- and age-specific reproductive and physical parameters of the bobcat (Lynx rufus) on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:1771-1782.

Pollack, E.M. 1950. Breeding habits of the bobcat in north-eastern United States. J. Mammal. 31:327-330.

Pollack, E. M. 1951. Observations on New England bobcats. Journal of Mammalogy 32:356-358.

Roberts, N. M. and S. M. Crimmins. 2010. Bobcat population status and management in North America: Evidence of large-scale population increase. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1:169-174.

Rolley, R.E. 1983. Behavior and population dynamics of bobcats in Oklahoma. Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.

Rollings, C. T. 1945. Habits, foods and parasites of the bobcat in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 9:131-145.

Stys, E. D., and B. D. Leopold. 1993. Reproductive biology and kitten growth of captive bobcats in Mississippi. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:80-89.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Proposal to remove the bobcat from Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Federal Register 47(6)1242-1246.

Winegarner C. E. and Winegarner M. S. 1982. Reproductive history of a bobcat. Journal of Mammalogy 63: 680–682.

Witmer, G.W. and D.S. DeCalesta. 1986. Resource use by unexploited sympatric bobcats and coyotes in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:2333-2338.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 14 Woolf, A. and G. F. Hubert. 1998. Status and management of bobcats in the United States over three decades: 1970’s-1990’s. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:287:294.

Woolf, A. and C. K. Neilson. 2001. Bobcat research and management: have we met the challenge? Pages 1-3 in A. Woolf, C. K. Nielsen, and R. D. Bluett editors. Proceedings of a Symposium on Current Bobcat Research and Implications for Management. The Wildlife Society 2000 Conference: Nashville, Tennessee.

Young, S. P. 1958. The Bobcat of North America. Wildlife Management Institute: Washington, D.C.

Zezulak, D. S. and R. G. Schwab. 1979. A comparison of density, home range, and habitat utilization of bobcat populations at Lava Beds and Joshua Tree National Monuments, California. Pages 74- 79 in P. C. Escherich and L. Blum, editors. Proceedings of the 1979 bobcat research conference. National Wildlife Federal Science and Technology Series 6.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 15 AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 Annex

LYNX SPP. RANGE COUNTRY SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

This document presents the results of the Lynx spp. range state survey conducted by the United States for the Animals Committee’s review of Lynx spp. under the review of the CITES Appendices, in accordance with Decision 13.93 (Rev. CoP15). From 2005 through 2006, the United States surveyed all Lynx spp. range countries to obtain management, status, and trade information on Lynx spp. We provide below the following information related to this survey: 1) a copy of the Lynx spp. range state survey questionnaire; 2) a summary of responses received by Lynx spp. range states; and 3) a table showing individual range state responses to the survey. Please note that at the time of this survey, Mexico had not yet completed its study of Lynx rufus in Mexico; however, this study has now been completed, and the results were reported at the 24th meeting of the Animals Committee (AC24 Inf. 10). The current document has not been updated to reflect this recent information, but the new status information on Lynx rufus in Mexico is available in the document AC24 Inf. 10.

I. Lynx spp. Range State Survey Questionnaire

Please respond to the following questions:

1. Is the population of Lynx [species] in [range country] increasing, decreasing, or stable?

2. Similarly, is the range of this species in your country increasing, decreasing, or stable?

3. Regarding harvest of this species in your country: i) Is harvest allowed? ii) If so, is it regulated? iii) If so, for what purposes? iv) What is the allowed harvest level and how is it determined?

4. Do you allow exports of this species? If so, what types of specimens may be exported?

5. Is illegal trade in this species documented or perceived to be a significant problem?

6. Are there other identified threats to the species?

7. Is this species being adversely impacted by trade, or is it likely to become so without continued listing in the Appendices?

II. Lynx spp. Range State Survey Summary of Results, May 29, 2007

Surveys were mailed on November 17, 2005, to all Lynx species range countries (n = 50). Of these, 44 responded (88% response rate). Response rates of countries per species were as follows: bobcat (Lynx rufus) 100%; Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 100%; Iberian lynx (Lynx paradinus) 100%; and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) 87%.

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Responses from Canada, Mexico, and USA.

The population is stable to increasing in both Canada and USA and unknown in Mexico. The range is stable in Canada, increasing in USA, and unknown in Mexico. Harvest is allowed and regulated in all 3 countries. Harvest is regulated for pelts and other parts (to a lesser extent) in Canada, pelts in USA, and game hunting in Mexico. Canada’s government determines the allowable harvest using harvest statistics; harvest is managed regionally. Harvest in the USA is managed by the states and can be up to 20% of the population; allowable harvest is determined using population models and demographic analyses. Mexico allows a harvest of 1 specimen per 4,000 hectares, determined by scent station surveys to estimate population size. All 3 countries allow exports. Illegal trade in this species is either not documented or not perceived to be a significant problem in any of the 3 countries. No significant threats have been identified in Canada or Mexico, but the USA has identified habitat loss as a potential significant threat. In both Canada and USA, this species is not being adversely impacted by trade and is not likely to become so without continued listing in the Appendices; Mexico

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 16 has no data to respond at this time; however, Dr. Rodrigo A. Medellín, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de México, is undertaking a study of bobcats in Mexico and results are expected at the end of 2007.

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Responses from Canada and USA.

Population is stable to increasing in Canada. In the contiguous United States, the population status is unknown, but appears to be stable to increasing in some areas. Since 2000, Lynx canadensis in the contiguous U.S. has been listed as threatened under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. In Alaska, lynx populations reached their cyclic low point in 2004 and are now stable or increasing. The range is stable in Canada. In the contiguous United States, the range is unknown, but appears to be stable to increasing in some areas. In Alaska, the range is stable to increasing. Harvest is allowed and regulated in Canada and in the USA; however, in the USA harvest of wild specimens is limited to the State of Alaska. Captive-raised lynx in the USA may be harvested where commercial farms exist. In both Canada and USA, the harvest is primarily regulated for pelts and to a lesser extent trade in other parts. In Canada, National and Provincial Governments determine the harvest using harvest statistics of the lynx and its prey, snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and manages harvest by region. In the USA, Lynx canadensis populations in Alaska fluctuate greatly over a 9-11-year period, responding mainly to the abundance of snowshoe hares. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Board of Game (BOG) use a harvest tracking strategy to allow the dynamic management of lynx based on the ability of populations to support harvest; allowed harvest is increased while a population is growing and is decreased during a population decline. Exports of this species are allowed by both Canada and USA and include pelts, mounts, parts, and garments; however, export of wild lynx (including parts and products) from the contiguous United States is restricted to purposes consistent with the U.S. Endangered Species Act (e.g., scientific, enhancement, zoological exhibition, or educational purposes). Illegal trade is not a significant problem in Canada or the USA. No significant threats were identified by Canada, but some populations have been impacted by land use changes and fragmentation, interspecific competition with bobcat and coyotes, and climate change. The USA stated that the way the lynx is affected varies across its range, and no single activity poses a threat consistently throughout the species’ range. In some portions of its range, lynx face few or no threats. The following threats are considered to be low, and especially apply to lynx in various areas of the contiguous United States: 1) lack of a cohesive international strategy to maintain connectivity between habitats in Canada and the United States; 2) effects of timber harvest and thinning and fire suppression; 3) incidental catch by trapping, snaring, or hunting; and 4) high traffic volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat. Both Canada and the United States agree that this species is not being adversely impacted by trade, and Canada reported that it is not likely to become so without continued listing in the Appendices.

Iberian Lynx (Lynx paradinus) Responses from Spain and Portugal.

Both Spain and Portugal report that the population is decreasing. In Spain the range is stable, but in Portugal the range is decreasing. Harvest is not allowed in either Spain or Portugal. Both range states allow export of samples (e.g., urine and feces) for scientific research and conservation purposes. Both Spain and Portugal report that illegal trade in this species is not documented or perceived to be a significant problem. In both range countries, a decline in prey is reported to be a threat to the species. In addition, Portugal identifies habitat degradation and fragmentation to be additional threats, and Spain identifies illegal trapping and vehicle collisions to be threats to the species. Both range countries report that this species is being adversely impacted by trade or is likely to become so without continued listing in the Appendices. Spain and Portugal underscore the importance of monitoring trade in Felidae (Spain)/Lynx species (Portugal) to control illegal trade in the species.

Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) Responses from: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nepal, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Responses not received from: Afghanistan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan.

Lynx lynx populations are reported as absent in 2 (4%) range countries, Austria and Greece. Of the 37 range countries that reported Lynx lynx populations to exist, the populations are decreasing (includes one country that reported “unstable”) in 11 (%) countries, stable in 13 (35%) countries, stable/slightly increasing in 5 (14%) countries, increasing in 6 (16%) countries, and unknown/no data in 3 (8%) countries (Note: Serbia is counted as both “increasing” and “decreasing” because one population is “increasing” while another is “decreasing”).

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 17 Of the 37 range countries that reported Lynx lynx populations to exist, the species range is decreasing in 11 (30%) countries, stable in 11 (30%) countries, stable/slightly increasing in 2 (5%) countries, increasing in 9 (24%) countries, unknown/no data in 4 (11%), and no response from 1 (3%) country (Note: Poland is counted as both “increasing” and “decreasing” because the species was reported as increasing in one region while decreasing in a another).

Harvest is not allowed in 22 (56%) range countries that responded to the survey. Eleven (28%) countries reported a lynx harvest and an additional 5 (13%) countries noted that they allow limited hunting with special permission under exceptional circumstances (e.g., when threat to livestock or other species, scientific and educational purposes). One country (3%) that participated in the survey did not respond to this question. All sixteen countries that allow hunting regulate it. The 11 countries with lynx harvests reported the following purposes for the harvest (number of countries that list each reason in parentheses; each country may have listed more than one): Population management or conservation purposes (5); population reduction to reduce depredation/conflicts with livestock or reindeer (3); trophies (2); scientific research (2); public health and safety (2); commercial use (1); and subsistence use (1). The harvest levels and basis of this determination is summarized in the Table below for the 11 countries with lynx harvests.

Table 1. Range country methodology for determining harvest level of Lynx lynx

Country Harvest Level How Determined Allowed annual harvest < annual Estonia Population monitoring population increase 2004-05 = 75 Evaluation by Finnish Game and Fisheries Finland 2005-06 = 89 Research Institute Kazakhstan Specific number not given Hunting rules 2004-05 quota = 50 Latvia 2005-06 quota = 70 Guidelines of the Species Action Plan 2006-07 quota = 94 Specific number not given for recent Mongolia Government years National population monitoring program; 2004-05 harvest = 44 hunting is allowed if population size is above Norway 2006 quota = 48 population goals for each management region 2005-06 = 150 Romania Scientific studies 2006-07 = 120 Russian Federation 2004-05 = 74 Population data in Provinces 2005 quota = 1 Government specialist group for large Slovenia 2006 quota = 0 carnivores Population size as determined through Sweden ~ 5 % of estimated population national monitoring program and research Uzbekistan ~ no. in mountain region = 90-112 Not provided

Exports of this species are allowed in 22 (56%) countries that responded to the survey. Fifteen countries (38%) do not allow exports, and 2 (5%) countries that participated in the survey did not response to the question. The following is a list of what could be exported with the number of countries that listed each in parentheses (note: each country may have listed more than one): live specimens/bred in captivity/zoos (8); in compliance with national and CITES regulations (7); scientific/research purposes --samples or live specimens (7); hunting trophies (3); reintroduction (1); live specimens (1); all specimen types (2); L .l . lynx only (L. l. isabellius prohibited) (1).

Illegal trade in this species is not documented or perceived to be a significant problem in 26 (67%) countries that responded to this survey. Illegal trade is documented or perceived to be a significant problem in 5 (13%) countries. Five (13%) countries stated that it is unknown or that illegal trade is not documented in their country. Three countries (8%) that participated in the survey gave no response to this question.

Other identified threats to this species were listed by 31(79%) of the range countries that participated in the survey. Five (13%) countries stated there were no other identified threats and 3 (8%) countries that participated

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 18 in the survey provided no response to this question. The following are the other threats listed (each country may have listed more than one threat; the number of countries that listed each threat is in parentheses): poaching/illegal killing (21); habitat destruction/loss/fragmentation/disturbance (21); decline of prey (9); road traffic/vehicles (7); human impact (3); inbreeding (2); competition with wolf (2); hostile public/lack of public support (2); disease/parasites (2); killed because of livestock predation (2)

Attack by domestic dogs (1); captives might mix with wild (1); lack of coordinated trans-boundary conservation action plan (1); disturbance during breeding season (1).

This species is being adversely impacted by trade or is likely to become so without continued listing in the Appendices according to 20 (51%) of the countries that responded to the survey. Twelve (31%) countries indicated that this species is not being adversely impacted by trade or likely to become adversely impacted if no longer listed in the Appendices. Two (5%) countries had no data to answer the question or listed “unknown” as their answer, and 4 (10%) countries that participated in the survey had no response to this question. One (3%) country responded that capture and trade are prohibited.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 19 III. Lynx spp. Range Country Survey Responses – May 29, 2007

Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 Is the Is the range of Is harvest If so, is it If so, for what What is the Do you allow Is illegal trade Are there other Is this species being population of this species in allowed ? regulated? purposes? allowed harvest exports of this in this species identified threats adversely impacted Lynx sp. your country level and how is species? If so, documented to the species? by trade, or is it increasing, increasing, it determined? what types of or perceived likely to become so decreasing or decreasing or specimens may to be a without continued stable? stable? be exported? significant listing in the problem? Appendices? Canada Lynx rufus Stable/ Stable Yes Yes Mostly pelts, 1500-2000 pelts Yes, mostly pelts; No No; possible No Increasing small trade on annually; some mounts, threats include other parts determined by parts, and decline in prey (taxidermy national and garments. population, loss of mounts, meat, provincial habitat and tail, teeth, etc.). governments habitat alteration, using harvest climate change. statistics and regulated/ managed by management regions. Mexico Lynx rufus Unknown at Unknown at Yes It must be Game hunting - Rate is one Yes, according to Between 1998- No Unknown; trade levels this time this time demonstrated hunting trophies specimen per the regulations 2003, 36 since 1980 are prior to harvest are the main 4000 hectares - specified by seizures of significantly lower that the harvest exported product determined CITES for the illegally caught than those in the USA rates are less of this species. according to export of Lynx rufus or Canada. The than the natural surveys made specimens from specimens impact of trade on the renewal rate of using olfactory Appendix II listed were recorded; species' survival the wild attractors and species. data are from cannot be determined population to using the number enforcement until the results of the be affected - of individuals actions; no data ongoing population general law of attracted to exists yet for assessment have wildlife and the calculate seizures from been assessed. general law of population size. ports, airports, ecological & borders. balance and environmental protection. United States Lynx rufus Stable/ Increasing Yes Yes Primarily Up to 20 % of Yes No Habitat loss No of America Increasing commercial population, but harvest for pelts. varies by State. Population models and demographic analyses are often used to determine harvest level. State

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 20 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 management programs determine harvest levels.

Canada Lynx Stable/ Stable Yes Yes Mostly pelts; very 5000-10,000 pelts Yes, mostly pelts; No No, some have No, not only are Lynx canadensis Increasing limited trade on annually; some mounts, been impacted by spp. not currently other parts determined by parts, and land use changes being adversely (taxidermy national and garments. and fragmentation impacted by trade, but mounts, meat, provincial along with removal of Lynx spp. teeth, tails, etc.). governments interspecific from the CITES using harvest competition with appendices would not statistics (of L. bobcats and change or negatively canadensis and coyotes; climate impact Canada's snowshoe hare) changes are current sustainable and regulated/ possible threats. harvest management managed by practices. management regions. United States Lynx In the In the Yes - Alaska Yes Commercial Populations in Yes. Parts and No No single activity No of America canadensis contiguous contiguous only; Captive Alaska fluctuate products from poses a threat USA it is USA it is raised lynx may greatly over a 9- captive raised consistently unknown, but unknown, but be harvested 11-year period, lynx and from any throughout its appears to be appears to be where responding mainly Alaskan lynx may range; in some stable to stable to commercial to the abundance be exported in portions of its increasing in increasing in farms exist. of snowshoe accordance with range, it faces few some areas. In some areas. In hares (Lepus CITES. Wild lynx or no threats. Alaska, stable Alaska, stable americanus). The from the The following to increasing. to increasing. Alaska contiguous USA threats are Department of (and their parts considered to be Fish and Game and products) low and especially (ADF&G) and the may only be apply to lynx in Board of Game exported for various areas of (BOG) use a purposes the contiguous tracking harvest consistent with USA: 1) lack of a strategy to allow the U.S. cohesive the dynamic Endangered international management of Species Act (e.g., strategy to lynx based on the scientific, maintain ability of enhancement, connectivity populations to zoological between habitats support harvest. exhibition, or in Canada and Under this educational the USA; 2) strategy, harvest purposes). effects of timber is increased while harvest and a population is thinning and fire growing and is suppression; 3) decreased during incidental catch

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 21 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 a population by trapping, decline. Every snaring, or spring ADF&G hunting; and 4) biologists analyze high traffic data collected volume. over winter during the trapping season to determine the most appropriate lynx seasons for the next winter.

Portugal Lynx pardinus Decreasing Decreasing No n/a n/a n/a urine/faeces/skin No Decline in prey, Yes; no problems (almost samples for habitat detected until now, extinguished) scientific/ degradation and but trade monitoring conservation fragmentation. (keeping Lynx species purposes. in Appendix II) is crucial as a precautionary measure to control illegal trade of the species under look- alike species legal trade. Spain Lynx pardinus Decreasing Stable No n/a n/a n/a Urine and faeces No Decline in prey, Yes; no problems for conservation illegal trapping, have been detected purposes. vehicle collisions. so far in this respect, but trade in all Felidae must be strictly monitored in order to avoid illegal trade with very threatened species by collectors or trophy hunters.

Albania Lynx lynx Decreasing Decreasing No n/a n/a n/a Not allowed No Lack of Yes, it is not coordination of adversely impacted trans-boundary by trade but the conservation country favors action plan, keeping the species habitat loss, forest listed in the fragmentation, Appendices. scarcity of prey, illegal hunting. Armenia Lynx lynx Decreasing due Decreasing due Lynx is Yes Conservation of Hunting quotas of Legally this Insignificant Decrease of Currently trade cannot to worsening of to logging. considered a biodiversity. Lynx during the species is not trade could be quantities of hare be considered as a environmental game species, last decades in banned from in internal major adverse impact

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 22 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 conditions, in although in the fact are equal to 0 being exported market; and roe deer. to the Lynx in particular, last decades it (zero). since it is not however, there Armenia. illegal logging. has not been included in the are no official included in the Red Data List of records. list of permitted Armenia, and species for Armenia isn’t a hunting. Party to CITES; theoretically any specimen or its part could be exported. However, legal cases of export "do not recorded till now" . Austria Lynx lynx No evidence of Slight increase No n/a n/a n/a Not allowed No, no recent Illegal shooting, Yes, any deregulation reproduction (after previous cases known, trapping, or of trade might yet; cannot be extinction). not perceived poisoning; become a potential concluded at to be a sometimes threat for the species the moment problem. captive lynx due to its small that the species escape and might population size. has yet mix with returned. autochthonous individuals and considering the small population size, this might become a problem. Azerbaijan Lynx lynx Stable No response No n/a n/a n/a No No response Deforestation No response Belarus Lynx lynx Stable or Slightly No n/a n/a n/a Yes, if for zoos, No Shortage of prey. No slightly increasing. bred in captivity, increasing. or scientific purposes. Bulgaria Lynx lynx There are No information The harvest is As an n/a There have been No No Poaching There can be an separate available. forbidden. The exception, with no permits issued adverse impact on the specimens species is a permit issued during the past 70 species if not listed in along the protected under by Ministry of years. the Appendices. border with the Law on Environment Serbia, but the Biological and Water. population is Diversity. unstable. China Lynx lynx Decreasing Decreasing No response Yes No response CITES authorities No response No response No response No response Croatia Lynx lynx Slight Decrease Slight Decrease No n/a n/a n/a Yes, if bred in Yes, some Inbreeding, lack Yes, no trade is captivity or documented of prey, illegal allowed but feel scientific attempts and hunting, habitat strongly that keeping purposes. due to small fragmentation, the lynx in the population even road traffic, Appendices is

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 23 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 minor competition with necessary as a mean decreases in wolf of additional number pose a protection. significant problem. Czech Lynx lynx Decreasing Decreasing No n/a n/a n/a Yes, if for zoos, No Poaching, habitat Yes, high rate of Republic bred in captivity, fragmentation, illegal shooting has or scientific disturbance, road also led to possible purposes. traffic, hostile risk of illegal trading. position of the public. Estonia Lynx lynx Stable; slightly Stable Yes Yes Harvest benefits Allowed annual Yes, any No No No increasing at lynx conservation. harvest is less specimens if the the moment. than annual gathering has population been legal. increase. Level determined by population monitoring. Finland Lynx lynx Increasing Increasing Yes Yes Article 16 2004-05 = 75 Yes, hunting Happens very No No derogations of lynx; 2005-06 = trophies, live seldom. Habitats Directive 89; based on the specimens. of European evaluation of Union. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. France Lynx lynx Population Increasing Yes, upon duly Yes To prevent A maximum of 1 No export Poached Due to the No assessments motivated important damage or 2 specimens applications. specimens not increasing conducted request. to cattle. per year. traded. population, every 3 years. Assessment of frequent road 2007data not the supporting accidents available yet, arguments, case concerning but according by case. Since yearling to the estimates 2004, only 1 individuals population is specimen in 2006. dispersing from growing. their natal home ranges. Occasional poaching. Georgia Lynx lynx Decreasing Decreasing No n/a n/a n/a No Illegal trade is Poaching and No data/unknown not properly habitat documented. destruction Germany Lynx lynx Increasing Increasing over No, it is treated n/a n/a n/a Yes, only No, not at the Habitat No, at present, due to slowly. last 20 years. as a strictly permitted under current time. fragmentation the "strictly protected" protected very exceptional (especially by status of the species, species; conditions and not motorways); there is no negative therefore it is for commercial impact by trade with

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 24 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 strictly purposes; since poaching. regard to the German prohibited to 1996, 14 population of the take specimens specimens have species. from the wild. been granted permits - all being live lynx bred in captivity in reliable zoological gardens. Greece Lynx lynx No scientific n/a No - it wouldn’t n/a n/a n/a No - not even if n/a n/a n/a data or be allowed if the species was evidence of the species found to exist in Lynx lynx was found to Greece. occurring. exist in Greece. Hungary Lynx lynx Stable Stable No n/a n/a n/a Only live captive- Yes Habitat Yes; taking into bred zoo animals. disturbance (i.e., account that the tourism, feral conservation status is dogs, forestry unfavorable and the activities), illegal species may be killing. impacted by trade, the current listing (CITES App. II and EU Annex A) is appropriate. India Lynx lynx No data - No survey done No n/a n/a n/a No Not Habitat loss and Yes; domestic trade is unknown at this but likely documented, occasional not permitted under time. decreasing. but likely to be persecution by the national a significant pastoralists for legislation. Illegal problem. livestock trade may have predation. adverse impacts on already low population density. Islamic Lynx lynx Decreasing Decreasing No n/a n/a n/a No No. Habitat Yes, according to Republic of destruction, mentioned instance, it Iran decrease in prey. appears as though trade is adversely impacting this species. Italy Lynx lynx Stable or locally Locally No n/a n/a n/a No Not monitored; Habitat Not monitored; increasing. increasing. unknown. fragmentation, unknown. human pressure, poaching. Kazakhstan Lynx lynx Stable Decreasing Yes Yes No response The Hunting rules L. l. lynx only. No No Yes; for the Export of L. l. prevention of removal isabellius of L.l.isabellinus prohibited. (living specimens, skins, and its products) passed off for L.l.lynx, it is

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 25 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 advisable to enter L.l.lynx into the Appendix II of CITES. Latvia Lynx lynx Increasing Increasing Yes Yes To win public 2004-05 quota = Yes, hunting No Parasites and No support for 50; 2005-06 quota trophies (wildlife diseases. conservation, and = 70; 2006-07 pelts and skulls). Population for species quota = 94. Quota fragmentation management and is determined by from habitat loss. research. guidelines of the Species Action Plan. Lithuania Lynx lynx Stable Stable No n/a n/a n/a Occasional zoo Not observed. Poaching and Yes, it should be exports. Must disturbance listed in Appendices. comply with EC during breeding Regulation 338/97 season. and CITES. Macedonia Lynx lynx Unknown due Seems to be No n/a n/a n/a Yes, in Yes, it is the Yes, mainly illegal Yes to no project/ decreasing - accordance with biggest hunting; some evidence to but unsure CITES. problem; apart occasions of dead support this - since no of legal animals because but seems to project/ punishments of crash with be decreasing. evidence to envisaged- vehicles. support this. nobody was punished up to now; some campaign for that purpose would be also necessary - but who will finance it; people want data but how to get data? Mongolia Lynx lynx Very little data No data. Yes Yes Trophy and Determined by Yes, skins can be No Illegal and Yes, illegal hunting is isabellina available on subsistence use. Government's exported based unsustainable a serious threat to this population decision. on the CITES hunting, reduction species, so it is trends for this Between 1958- permit for export. of prey species, desirable not to species in 1960 an occasional change the Lynx Mongolia. estimated 350 attacks by status as CITES Lynx were domestic dogs, Appendix II. removed annually some habitat (Stubbe 1965). degradation and loss due to clear cutting, logging, and forest fires. Montenegro Lynx lynx Unknown; Unknown No n/a n/a n/a National Unknown No response No response population legislation status is not prohibits export.

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 26 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 monitored. Nepal Lynx lynx Stable Increasing No n/a n/a n/a Generally, no. Probably not. Depredation on Yes; although no data livestock on trade is available, sometimes but due to its causes retaliatory rareness/limited killings. Disease population, trade will from sharing definitely adversely habitat with impact its population domestic animals. in the country. Therefore, we strongly advise to continue listing in the Appendices. Norway Lynx lynx 2004-05: 20-25 Stable Yes Yes Population Harvest level is Yes, all specimen No No No % increase in regulation where dependent on types. number of domestic animals population size family groups. share determined 1996-03: 20-30 management through national % total areas with monitoring population livestock. program & decrease. population goals 2003-04: for each population management stable. region. Hunting conducted if population size is above regional goal: 2004-05 - 44 lynxes harvested; 2006 quota is 48 lynxes. Poland Lynx lynx Stable Decrease in No n/a n/a n/a No No Habitat No; on account of the Northeast fragmentation, fact that lynx is a Poland, stable migratory barriers, protected species in in the poaching. Poland, its listing in Carpathian CITES Appendices range. has no influence on status of the species in our country. Romania Lynx lynx Stable Stable Yes Yes In the interest of 2005-06 is 150 Yes, export is No Habitat No protecting wild individuals and permitted; can be fragmentation; fauna and was determined exported just habitat conserving by scientific based on the degradation and natural habitats; studies; 2006-07 CITES permit for restraint; human to prevent serious is 120 individuals export. Only skin impact. damage; in the also determined + fur of hunted interest of public by scientific animals is health and public studies. sometimes

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 27 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 safety; to allow, exported (animals under strictly hunted by foreign supervised hunters). conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent. Russian Lynx lynx Generally Stable Yes Yes Commercial and 74 lynxes Yes No Habitat loss Yes; nowadays the Federation stable. trophy purposes. harvested in through forest level of international 2004-05 season. destruction, trade does not affect Levels poaching. the population but determined by taking into account lynx population future perspectives, it data in Provinces. is desirable not to change the lynx status as CITES Annex II species. Serbia Lynx lynx Carpathian Stable Yes - with Yes Only allowed for Determined by Only for scientific No Habitat loss, Yes population special permit; scientific Ministry of purposes. illegal killing. increasing; hunting on lynx purposes with a Science & Balkan is prohibited special permit. Environmental population without such Protection. decreasing. permit. Slovakia Lynx lynx Stable/slightly Stable/slightly Lynx is all year- Yes Livestock and Limited to cases Yes, if complies No Habitat According to hunting increasing. increasing round protected game protection, in 3-iii; exception with national fragmentation, legislation, Lynx lynx mostly species and its research and granted by the legislation and poaching, vehicle is a game species, so southwards hunting is educational Ministry of CITES. Recently, collisions. dead specimens (towards prohibited. purposes, Environment. hair, skin, tissue found are the property Hungarian Exceptions are repatriation of samples and of hunting border) and granted by other species into teeth. Exports association. westwards Ministry of lynx habitats. were allowed for Practically, trophy (toward Czech Enforcement research aimed at (fur, skin, skull) from Republic). only in the preservation these dead reasonable or conservation of specimens should be cases (see 3- the species. subject to trade. Also iii). specimens kept or bred in captivity should be subject to trade. According to data from CITES Scientific Authority of SR, recently 25 specimens of Lynx are held in captivity. Due to the mentioned reasons, we propose to maintain listing of Lynx lynx in CITES

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 28 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 Appendix II. Slovenia Lynx lynx Decreasing Increasing Yes Yes Public health and 2006 quota = 0; Yes, tissue No Lack of prey, Yes; trade does not safety, prevention 2005 quota = 1, samples recently. habitat loss, pose a threat to the of livestock determined by inbreeding, lack of population, however, depredation, government public support, trade in hunting scientific specialist group vehicular trophies from research, wild for large collisions, neighboring countries population carnivores. poaching. is a reason for management. concern. Precautionary principle should be applied when considering possible exclusion of Lynx lynx from CITES Appendix II. Spain Lynx lynx Doesn't occur n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a naturally in Spain; is only present in zoos. Sweden Lynx lynx Stable Increasing Yes, by Yes Reduce damage Around 5 % of the Yes, legally No. Poaching. The species is not derogation. in the reindeer estimated obtained being adversely hurdle areas. population. specimens. Live impacted by trade and Outside the Harvest level is specimens would not become so reindeer hurdle dependent on exported only for if not listed on CITES, areas, the harvest population size scientific or because the trade of is restricted and determined conservation the species is still selective, not through national purposes. regulated by national affecting the monitoring law. population program, taking negatively. scientific research into account. Switzerland Lynx lynx Stable/slightly Stable/slightly No, unless see 3-i. see 3-i. see 3-i. Yes, zoo No Poaching and No; since the species Increasing. increasing. threat to specimens or for vehicle collisions. is protected and no livestock or reintroduction. harvest is allowed, other species. trade does not become a negative factor for the population of Lynx lynx. Turkey Lynx lynx Stable Stable No n/a n/a n/a No, unless No No Yes; the trade of the exemption in the species doesn't exist Convention. in our country. Nevertheless, Lynx lynx furs are imported to our country from your country in order to be processed and

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 29 Survey Questions Range State Species 1 2 3-i 3-ii 3-iii 3-iv 4 5 6 7 returned back. It is a correct approach that the species will stay in the convention annex lists and that its trade will be monitored. Ukraine Lynx lynx Slight increase Stable No n/a n/a n/a Yes, only for non- No Reduction of Yes; harvest and every year wild animals (zoo, habitat, increase trade of wild lynxes in since 2001. etc.) of recreation Ukraine will be impact, decline in adverse for its prey population, population in our poaching, country. The species competition with should continue to be wolf. listed in the CITES Appendices. Uzbekistan Lynx lynx Stable Decreasing Yes Only illegal For hunting Approximate No Yes Degradation of Lynx lynx isabellinus isabellinus hunting. trophies. count in mountain range place, low into Appendix II of part of the country fodder base. CITES. is 90-112 individuals. Turkmenistan Lynx lynx Low stable Stable No n/a n/a n/a Not allowed No Reduction of Capture and trade are habitat over of prohibited forest fires

AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 – p. 30